Justice Sidi K Jobarteh has discharged and acquitted seven of the nine accused in the D2.591 million fraud trial against the Gambia Ports Authority, ruling that the prosecution built its case on institutional lapses and suspicion, not evidence.
The first and second accused must now enter their defence. Delivering her ruling on a no-case submission in State v Jackile Kanteh & 8 Others_, Justice Jobarteh held that the prosecution failed to establish even a prima facie case against the third to ninth accused.
She said the evidence presented proved nothing more than operational failures at Vista Bank and fell far short of the criminal threshold for conspiracy, making documents without authority, and theft.
The nine accused were charged over alleged unauthorised withdrawals from GPA’s dalasi current account at Vista Bank between 22 April and 5 November 2022.
The prosecution claimed the accused conspired with Buba Jobe, still at large, to defraud GPA of D2,591,000.
The charges included conspiracy to commit a felony under Section 368, making documents without authority under Section 332, making false documents under Section 320, and theft under Section 245 of the Criminal Code.
Fourteen prosecution witnesses testified and 21 exhibits were tendered.
GPA officials said the cheque series used did not match their official stock and the signatures violated the bank’s dual-signatory mandate.
PW7, an investigating officer, testified that the first accused signed a cheque requisition form despite lacking signing authority, and that payees’ phone numbers were fake and driver’s licences forged.
PW12, Vista Bank’s Head of Internal Audit, admitted the requisition was processed despite the irregularity and confirmed GPA’s mandate was accessible to staff in the bank’s system.
He also conceded that printing the cheque books was Vista Bank’s fault. PW11 stated that none of the accused benefited from the withdrawn funds.
PW14, Head of Operations, admitted she could not confirm whether the eighth and ninth accused contacted the Relationship Manager before approving transactions, and that supervisory limits were not clearly documented.
At the close of the prosecution’s case, defence counsel filed no-case submissions. The court agreed. Justice Jobarteh applied the R v Galbraith principle, ruling that where prosecution evidence is too weak for any properly directed jury to convict, the case must stop.
On the conspiracy charge, she found no evidence of communication, arrangement, shared proceeds, or coordinated conduct among the third to ninth accused.
All were Vista Bank employees acting in their official roles. “Failure to detect irregularities does not, without evidence of criminal intent or agreement, amount to conspiracy,” she said.
“The essential ingredient of a meeting of minds is completely absent.” On the charge of making documents without authority, she found no evidence that any of the accused inserted false information, forged signatures, or knowingly processed fraudulent instruments.
Processing transactions in the course of employment is not a crime without proof of knowledge or intent.
She gave weight to the cautionary statements of the eighth and ninth accused, who said they contacted the Banjul Branch for verification before approving transactions.
“A person acting pursuant to a fraudulent scheme would not ordinarily initiate independent verification,” she noted.
Justice Jobarteh also faulted the prosecution for failing to tender email correspondence on the verification process, calling it a critical gap.
On the theft charge, she found no evidence that any of the seven accused received, possessed, or benefited from the funds. No financial records linked them to the proceeds.
Under Sections 238 of the Criminal Procedure Code and 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court discharged and acquitted the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth accused on all counts.
The court took a different view of the first and second accused. Justice Jobarteh ruled that the prosecution established a prima facie case against them.
The first accused, GPA’s former Cash Office Manager, signed the cheque requisition form without authority and had control over cheque books within GPA.
Communications between him and the second accused placed him directly in the transaction process.
For the second accused, the court found that she filled the requisition form and personally received the cheque books at the Banjul Branch, creating sufficient circumstantial evidence to require an answer.
Justice Jobarteh said she would not analyse the evidence against the first and second accused further to avoid prejudicing the trial. Both have been ordered to enter their defence. E.R. Doughan represented the State.
The first accused was represented by E. Sanneh, the second by F. Jallow, the third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth by J. Jobarteh, and the fourth by M.H.B. Jallow.
